STARFIELD : The Star Citizen Killer?
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 08. 2024
- Starfield has new footage, a release date and a price tag. Squadron 42, still has no release date, no price (as of upload of this video) and no new footage for quite some time.
Many on social media are saying that Starfield will be the Star Citizen killer. But is it?
store.steampowered.com/app/17...
robertsspaceindustries.com/en...
Let me know your thoughts in the comments below!
00:00:00 Introduction
00:01:55 Starfield Breakdown
00:04:50 Squadron 42 Breakdown
00:06:28 Can They Be Compared?
00:09:04 Condensed Ramble
00:10:42 End Rant
►►►Not Played Star Citizen? Not Got An Account Even?◄◄◄
Become a Star Citizen and get 5,000 free Credits with this link! robertsspaceindustries.com/en...
You Can follow me at any of these:
Twitter ► / _sobersoldier_ ◄
Twitch ► / thesobersoldier ◄
#StarCitizen #StarCitizenNews #starfield - Hry
What do you think?
Will Starfield wipe the floor with Squadron 42?
Will Squadron 42 live up to its hype?
Will Starfield have bugs?
Which are you most looking forward to?
Did I leave the stove on?
Let me know in the comments below!
great summary of the differences in the two games one thing i would add is that if this launches this year and potentially sq42 comes late next year it may have more effect on Bioware with Mass Effect 5 which is due in 2025 if both games are successful and bioware dont get there act together it could kill that franchise off for good.
I would like to see them as all successful titles in their own right though.
You already know the game will gave bugs. Would you think a Bethesda game be bug free?
my genre more to the space game so starfield, falling frontier, star wars outlaws, mass effect 5, after is see the release gameplay and review if good i will play it if not, well i will not touch it...except for squadron42 because i has pledge it for $20 so if the game crap i stil dont mind so much....
it might not be fully comparable - but it might be enough to scratch the space combat itch for the casual and new player that SC depends on for bringing in new money.
Yes you can't compare to a game that will never be released, we need both finished products in our hands to be able to compare.
It will be scratching my itch when Starfield releases in a few months. Can't wait!
As someone who has spent entirely too much money in Star Citizen, I prepurchased the deluxe digital edition of Starfield for PC on day one. I'm sure both will find niches for me, and I fully expect to play both for a long time to come.
Good response and one I also plan to follow. I’m going to pre order soon after payday.
Brooooo..... you really pre-ordered? You may have to end up spending a week or two in SC until SF gets its inevitable month-long list of post-launch patches.
@@billywashere6965 I mean, it's a Bethesda game. So potentially, even likely, having to wait for the point-one patch and/or the community unofficial patch mod is pretty much a given. I know and accept it. I just don't see the logic of waiting when I know I'm going to get it regardless.
Can’t wait for the modders to put squadron 42 into starfield before it’s ever released
I honestly would not be surprised. Actually, I would be more surprised if no modder put Star Citizen / Sq42 into Starfield just in general.
That's a stupid argument to say that since starfield was in development for 25 years and that SC has had 11 its not a fair way to compare how much development has been done. Starfield was developing other games and getting funding from those games and trying elements in those games to develop for starfield.. SC has been crowd funded with no hold bars with more than 600million and focusing on one type of development.. so to say they have nothing to show after 11 years off nonstop money being poured into the developers lap and no limit on how they can make it yeah it is frustrating to see another game have alot of the details and effects that they promised. So please don't act like 11 years is not enough compared to 25.. they should have something to show for already.
They do, though. They have PES. Starfield doesn't. They developed 18 new backend services from scratch. They have 150 players per server. Starfield doesn't even have multiplayer. There are no new middleware suites present in Starfield. CIG had to build four new middleware suites from scratch.
You're right that Starfield is utilising 25 years worth of Bethesda's cumulative development experience to make a mish-mash action-RPG set in a space environment. The difference between the two is that what CIG has achieved isn't available in any other game to date. And what Starfield is doing is combining features they've already developed in their previously released games.
@@billywashere6965 dude PES does not work as intended. And it's 120 per server they cannot achieve 150 they have tried and even then at 120 the servers are still melting , even at the end of two weeks at 100 people there was still PES screaming to the point that they have to scale PES down. So is it still really PES if they have had to scale it down because not to me.. they went backwards, ehay they have done on paper is unlike anyone else.. but when you get in the game if you have not noticed all the wipes they keep to constantly have to do every 2-3weeks, even if it's not full they have to do some form of reset this is why people look foward to the next patch update not because the game gets better but because it give them 1 week really good game play to two the most before PES starts melting and you cannot say you have no seen it. So to me until that works correctly it is till not useful and cannot be counted as an achievement.
@@danny1988221 Couple things:
1) They scaled up PES
2) The servers have dynamic counts, they can range from 1 - 175 (which is as high as I've seen it)
3) 3.19.1 works beautifully.
Your right. Starfield: pickup and play and have a blast.
StarCitizen:Commitment.period. you must eat and drink SC. Welcome to the big game.
Exactly. Although if Starfield is like fallout then we may need to eat and drink in that too but it’s not that tedious.
They are not the same but close enough..... Every players have their own ways and thinking.... we will just wait which one will people get bored first.
I think starfield compares the best with MassEffect. Not star citizen.
Starfield is a 3D version of Starbound, minus the multiplayer. We don't really compare Starbound to Star Citizen because the objectives and designs are very different.
*Saying SF will kill SC is like saying the new NFS is going to kill Grand Turismo.*
Plus SF ain't even out yet, people are assuming way too much about the game.
The game could get delayed a year or two. It could be a massive flop. We have no idea, until the game is released, how good SF or even SQ42 will be for that matter.
Single Player for now... :) Imagine the contents used online someday..... If this goes online and not that broken like Star Citizen.... Imagine what they already have. Star Citizen needs competition.... NO more slacking off.....
If starfield even just added co-op, it would be awesome. Only issue I see with online in Starfield is Fallout 76. If they do it right, then yes, it could be awesome.
Great synopsis! I'm one of the single player individuals on the Star Citizen side and will be purchasing Starfield (after i allow a little time to see how many Bethesda patches roll out).
I honestly can't wait for both of them. I may also wait a few patches for Starfield though. I like FO76 with friends just to have some co-op fun but man that was a rough launch. Glad I didn't pay for that one.
@@ItIsntJack I agree! I also really appreciated you stating the blatant obvious about how long it took to get Starfield to this point! Looks like we still have a few years to go before we get to properly complain about time on development! 😁
I get that games take time. It’s harder for us when we hear about it from day one as we wait what feels like eternity for them to release. I bet if starfield had went through a similar open development as SC had there would be riots 😂
Star Citizen needs revenue to keep developing, hence people buying spaceships. If people stop buying spaceships, there’s a chance that they can’t afford to keep developing the game. So yes, it’s actually possible for SF to kill SC.
An indirect approach. Didn't think of that.
Only way to really see is when it comes out. We will check to see how future invictus and alien week goes, I have seen alot of SC backers already saying they will out SC aside and play starfield as their main because they have alot of what SC has promised and not delivered.
As I have seen SC invictus did not make the same figures or more like SC was predicting so lets see if this is a trend.
The major difference: One has a release date and will be moddable AF...
The other is being developed for a century an I am wondering if it will ever be released.
And this is still an argument IMO cause it was expected to be released years ago.
If starfield is being delayed until 2029, I'll be mad about that too, but right now it seems Bethesda is handling this much better.
I don't see how you can say they're handling it much better when Bethesda didn't have to build the same tech CIG did. That's like saying a Chevy Trax is being handled in its production much better than a Tesla Cybertruck. Like... yes, they're both vehicles, and yes, they're both in the utility category, but they're doing WIDELY different things in completely different segments, requiring completely different tech. Bethesda's last foray into the MMO genre resulted in Fallout 76, and I don't think anyone considers that to be handled better than Star Citizen.
@@billywashere6965 hmm you can argue about that from different points of view. No they didn't need to build multiplayer code. Then again, Bethesda uses a built-from-the-ground own engine, while CIG licensed Cry/Lumberyard. One can say CIG has such an incredibly complex project that it can justify the endless development. Contra to that, one may call it mismanagement to delay a game again and again and again - and again. No real news on S42 for years. There are so many features added to SC that are not "needed", it feels like Chris just cant stop adding detail, loosing sight for the big picture and a 1.0. At the same time assets are becoming so old they already need constant renovation... Oh and then again, S42 doesn't need multiplayer code. This is result of changing plans/focus to extreme-MMO sometime during development.
10 years into development and they didn't even release a beta, or any kind of gameplay demo for S42. This is result of bad management.
@@JBJHJM All the features added to SC are what was promised during the Kickstarter phase. They're literally just trying to follow-through with what they promised. It's a rare thing in today's industry where FDev promised ship interiors for Elite Dangerous, which is why a lot of people helped fund the project, but then later said they weren't going to add them. At least CIG is sticking to their guns and delivering (albeit slowly) everything they promised.
Also, we won't see SQ42 until CitizenCon this year. So we can't say if it's the result of bad management until we see what they've designed. I'll withhold judgment until then, just like I'll withhold judgment on the quality of Starfield until it's released.
Another reason for the big "no", is that SC doesn't really exist yet - so there is nothing to kill, really?
SF is launching in a few months, SC is still in alpha.
another is that SF is also not out yet.
Two very different games with two very different experiences. I will love them both equially.
same here
people that say "you can't compare" are just disagreeing without any arguments. You can compare and contrast anything, that is why it is a skill that we learn in primary school. This whole video is you making comparisons.
What you don't seem to understand is the following: it IS a direct competition for a LOT of people because a lot of people have been looking for a space game with certain things, regardless of whether it is single or multiplayer. In their eyes, Starfield seems to be making what SC promised them and never created.
Will it kill SC? nope, because the only people that play SC are extremely fanatic about it, that's how the sunk cost fallacy works
Except SC promised multiplayer, and SF can't deliver it. The only thing it's delivering is the science and exploration loops, along with crafting. Those are the three main things. But it doesn't even have seamless ground-to-space, nor engineering, nor survival mechanics, nor full-scale planets. So no, it's not making what SC promised and never created, it offers SOME aspects of what people long for from the SC experience. But people not interested in the science/exploration/crafting loop don't have much else to look forward to from SF.
No way it will kill sc seeing as its single player were as sc is multiplayer it’s a dumb argument
it's a very dumb argument yet people still are making it.
Those are two different games, with different goals to accomplish, and different target audiences to appeal
exactly!
Space Sim vs Space RPG, the games while being SP versions don't seem to have anything in common other than "shooter" and "space"
^^ this
Well, for starters, Squadron 42 has taken way longer to develop and release than the entirety of Starfield - and it's still not released. Bad argument to make, bud.
Not really. Squadron started after the kickstarter in 2012 and it took time to move from just a handful of people to a full dev team and studio. It’s also had multiple engine changes due to crytech. It’s the end product not the journey. If you never heard of either games up until now nothing would be said, it’s only because it’s been open development that makes people complain about how long it’s been taking. My video is only my opinion. Everyone else is entitled to theirs.
@@ItIsntJack Exactly. People keep trying to revise history and extending SC/SQ42's development time based on some ridiculous notion. They had to restart development on the project after they took the poll and the community encouraged CIG to spend the money to make the games as big as possible, and that was around 2014/2015. So they haven't been in development as long as some people say, and they've had to deal with a lot of hurdles to overcome to actually start building out the game the way they wanted.
@@ItIsntJack everything you just said doesn't change that it has taken longer since the announcement date. We can sit here and dissect all the reasons that the project has gotten delayed or taken longer than originally anticipated, but it was still a product they've charged money for and yet again have still not delivered on. How many times must a bird quack before we at least consider it's in the duck family?
LOL no, it wont kill star citizen at all. they do not even compete.
It’s not even close. Two different styles of game for for different audiences. Like comparing CS:GO to Battlefield 4. Except one does not have multiplayer.
@@ItIsntJack i personally compare it rather to mass effect. If anything.
You can't kill something that was never alive.
Until Starfield releases, neither are alive. I hope they do both come out, I want both of them.
You just lost the game.
I lost before it began
If it works...star citizen rip ...SC is buggy mess that has not worked for...13 years..lol.. Dude keep your SC...
I’ll be keeping SC and sq42 and soon Starfield. SC has only been in development since 2012 making it 11 years. Starfield has been in the works for 25. Either way, sc is a buggy mess but still fun.
Yes for 11 or 13 years in the making ...for what??....SC is rubbish and also the constanr wipes...how are you supose to play this game knowing in a few months time after a wipe its all starts over again......!!!
@@ItIsntJack You need to have SQ42 and SC to keep it. Those games aren't released and may never release.
@@ItIsntJack 25 years in the making just means they thought of the concept. They stated multiple times they started working on SF after Fallout 4.